Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

curiousrat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 128 posts

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#81

Post by ajross »

nooop wrote: post #77
ajross wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones." Dropbox: "You give us the permissions we need to do those things solely to provide the Services." I'm not sure there's any difference in intent or clarity here. I think it's clear that Dropbox is nicer about it. And because their product is smaller in scope maybe the…

What isn't clear in "promoting" the Services? Google can broadcast TV ads with your private photos if they want to.

No, they can't; don't be silly. That's not what "promoting" means, and in any case such a use would be a clear copyright violation (note elsewhere in the license where they make it clear that you still own the copyright). It seems clear to me that the intent is things like the Youtube "recommended" list. If you upload a public video, they need permission to repackage it for display in other contexts than direct viewing.

But if you insist on reading the license that uncharitably, you have to accept that Dropbox too can find plenty of wiggle room to be evil. Seriously, you're granting "all needed permissions" without enumeration -- you don't find that scary? What if Dropbox decides that "providing the service" requires revenue gained from scraping credit card numbers from stored files? See? I can come up with equally silly scenarios.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#82

Post by rfugger »

Xuzz wrote: post #7

On the other hand, this post from The Verge explains what is actually going on: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms... The important quote: "Looking at some of Google's competitors, it's clear that they need the exact same permissions — they just use slightly more artful language to communicate them." All of these services need similar permissions, as do most web services: it's just an artifa…

Google's is worse because it takes all rights to use your work however it likes, and then states in its privacy policy that it won't use it for anything other than to provide the service. But if it likes, it can amend the privacy policy in the future to remove or modify that limitation. So you have to trust Google, which may be fine now, but what about in 20 years? They have rights to your work forever.

Other providers clearly state that they are only taking rights to your work for the purpose of providing the service, right in the ToS. IANAL, but this seems important.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#83

Post by ceejayoz »

jlarocco wrote: post #79
ceejayoz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and see virtually every user flee the service. It wouldn't be shocking if Congress and the FTC got involved in such a situation, either - they got involved in Google's P3P non-policy, for example. TOSes are generally overly broad, yes. Virtually every one you've ever agreed to had language that could be interpreted in an absurdly negative manner.

"Sure, and see virtually every user flee the service. It wouldn't be shocking if Congress and the FTC got involved in such a situation, either - they got involved in Google's P3P non-policy, for example." Well then they shouldn't have a problem amending the TOS, right? If they know what's okay and what's going too far, they must have some idea where the line is. "TOSes are generally overly broad, yes. Virtually every…

> Well then they shouldn't have a problem amending the TOS, right? If they know what's okay and what's going too far, they must have some idea where the line is.

Being extremely specific in TOSes tends to lead to lots and lots of revisions as you discover unexpected cases. As a user, I'd prefer a TOS that's a little more broad instead of having to monitor it every five minutes for tweaks.

> Dropbox's TOS seems pretty clear on the matter.

Dropbox's TOS for years was similar to Drive's. I'd expect Google to eventually make the same clarifications in the TOS Dropbox did in 2011.

That said, while we're being paranoid about TOSes, Dropbox's says they can change the terms at any point, and not notify you beyond updating them on their site. They could change the terms to "we will publicly share everything you've ever put on Dropbox with your worst enemies" tomorrow, and the next time you sync you're theoretically subject to the new terms.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#84

Post by rsbrown »

Xuzz wrote: post #7

On the other hand, this post from The Verge explains what is actually going on: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms... The important quote: "Looking at some of Google's competitors, it's clear that they need the exact same permissions — they just use slightly more artful language to communicate them." All of these services need similar permissions, as do most web services: it's just an artifa…

Excellent article. I particularly liked this observation regarding verbiage in the Dropbox TOS: "That language is definitely friendlier than Google's, but it's actually more expansive, since it's more vague."

As laypersons, we may feel more comfortable when companies avoid legalese and use straight talk, but that doesn't mean we are any more safer or protected.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#85

Post by ceejayoz »

user24 wrote: post #42
capo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If they are to enable you to share a document you need to give them license to do so. If they are to create copies of the files across datacenters and employ OCR on images and use that to improve their algorithms, they need to inlucde that in their terms of service to avoid getting sued.

Why not make the ToS incremental so you agree as-and-when you use the relevant part of the service. Click share "Do you authorise Google to share this document yada-yada", done. Most users will only consume part of the service, why should they have to agree to 100%?

I really don't want a dialog box with an "I agree" checkbox every time I make a minor action in a web interface.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#86

Post by yesbabyyes »

ctdonath wrote: post #68
yesbabyyes wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure about that. Use, host, store, reproduce are no-brainers. Modify and create derivative works are for thumbnails, OCRing, converting to other formats for displaying. The rest are for sharing with friends, or the world, right? Edit: Read stuartmemo's The Verge article if you're interested, it's pretty insightful.

As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users. Indeed, methinks Google's whole underlying goal in all their endeavors is to mine data they'd not get thru other means. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe Google isn't (or just hasn't gotten there but intends to someday) scouring every GMail, every Chrome OS click, every OCRed image…

Well, first off, Google has a privacy policy [1] where they commit to not publishing my entire works without my consent.

Even without that, though -- what do you think would happen if they did what you're suggesting? I think the public punishment would be worse than any legal repercussions.

And that's what it comes down to, IMO. I regret that we have to have these far reaching policies and agreements filled with legalese, but there is also the social contract.

Of course, what you say about data mining for ads is true. If you don't want to expose yourself to that, don't expose your data to Google.

[1] http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#87

Post by ryanisinallofus »

Dropbox writing their TOS in a way that non-lawyers can read it was a good move here. Neither TOS really effects anything being done with your data in a practical way but the PR Dropbox is getting from theirs is worth 100x the time they put into it. Nice investment.

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#88

Post by trustmeimadr »

huhtenberg wrote: post #51
aresant wrote: post #31

If you're truly concerned about your data integrity build a TrueCrypt volume within the Goog Drive / Dropbox. Despite what the TOS says on either end there are always going to be breaches, court orders, or potentially even employees with the power to access your files.

TC volume needs to be unmounted in order for gDrive/Dropbox to be able to sync it. For that you need to close all apps that are currently using any files on that volume. That's not exactly easy-breezy. In fact, it's a major pain in the ass, so - no, this is not a practical option.

What about using encfs?

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#89

Post by Xuzz »

rfugger wrote: post #82
Xuzz wrote: post #7

On the other hand, this post from The Verge explains what is actually going on: http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms... The important quote: "Looking at some of Google's competitors, it's clear that they need the exact same permissions — they just use slightly more artful language to communicate them." All of these services need similar permissions, as do most web services: it's just an artifa…

Google's is worse because it takes all rights to use your work however it likes, and then states in its privacy policy that it won't use it for anything other than to provide the service. But if it likes, it can amend the privacy policy in the future to remove or modify that limitation. So you have to trust Google, which may be fine now, but what about in 20 years? They have rights to your work forever. Other provide…

I'm confused. You say Google "states in its privacy policy that it won't use it for anything other than to provide the service", but that's not good enough, because they can amend it later to remove that protection.

How is that different from the other providers, who (as you said, again) "clearly state that they are only taking rights to your work for the purpose of providing the service"? What is different about them which stops them from amending their policies?

Re: Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

#90

Post by rjsamson »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #32
stuartmemo wrote: post #6

Complete FUD. Best article I've read on this is from The Verge. Google would be unable to create backups or thumbnails for example without these rights. http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...

You may be right, but that doesn't prevent them from using those same rights for other purposes (much like TSA searches being used to find drugs rather than terrorism). If Google really means it, and wants it to be clear, they could put it right into the TOS: "Google may do X, when it does so in order to provide feature Y".

These are the same types of arguments that a few of the more vocal but ill-informed professional photographers out there use to spread FUD about photo sharing sites like Flickr, etc.

The bottom line is that you, as a user, have to grant such a license to Google, Flickr, etc in order for them to be able to provide the services that you want. Its a copyright issue, and I haven't seen any other good way around it in anyone else's TOS yet and I've read quite a few.

Post reply on HN